Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

OBJECTIVE: Malalignment is associated with knee osteoarthritis (KOA), however, the optimal anatomic axis (AA) knee alignment measurement on a standard limb radiograph (SLR) is unknown. This study compares one-point (1P) and two-point (2P) AA methods using three knee joint centre locations and examines cross-sectional associations with symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis (SRKOA), radiographic knee osteoarthritis (RKOA) and knee pain. METHODS: AA alignment was measured six different ways using the KneeMorf software on 1058 SLRs from 584 women in the Chingford Study. Cross-sectional associations with principal outcome SRKOA combined with greatest reproducibility determined the optimal 1P and 2P AA method. Appropriate varus/neutral/valgus alignment categories were established using logistic regression with generalised estimating equation models fitted with restricted cubic spline function. RESULTS: The tibial plateau centre displayed greatest reproducibility and associations with SRKOA. As mean 1P and 2P values differed by >2°, new alignment categories were generated for 1P: varus <178°, neutral 178-182°, valgus >182° and for 2P methods: varus <180°, neutral 180-185°, valgus >185°. Varus vs neutral alignment was associated with a near 2-fold increase in SRKOA and RKOA, and valgus vs neutral for RKOA using 2P method. Nonsignificant associations were seen for 1P method for SRKOA, RKOA and knee pain. CONCLUSIONS: AA alignment was associated with SRKOA and the tibial plateau centre had the strongest association. Differences in AA alignment when 1P vs 2P methods were compared indicated bespoke alignment categories were necessary. Further replication and validation with mechanical axis alignment comparison is required.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.joca.2015.11.009

Type

Journal article

Journal

Osteoarthritis cartilage

Publication Date

04/2016

Volume

24

Pages

612 - 622

Keywords

Anatomic axis, Knee alignment, Knee osteoarthritis, Radiography, Adult, Aged, Anatomic Landmarks, Bone Malalignment, Female, Humans, Knee Joint, Middle Aged, Osteoarthritis, Knee, Pain, Prospective Studies, Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Radiography, Reproducibility of Results